Discussion
If the HBR subscriber's statements are true, which of the following can be concluded?
*This question is included in Exercise Set 3: Intro to Only If / If And Only If, question #8
| (A) | The XYZ Company may care about HR. |
| (B) | ... |
| (C) | ... |
| (D) | ... |
| (E) | ... |
| (F) | ... |
The solution is
Posted: 06/04/2011 18:59
The passage reads "only if the HR department is considered important..." Why doesn't that part take position as the consequent? I interpreted this like below:
Vice president > HR considered important
because HR being considered important directly follows "only if."
With this interpretation, I don't believe you can properly conclude anything.
Vice president > HR considered important
because HR being considered important directly follows "only if."
With this interpretation, I don't believe you can properly conclude anything.
Posted: 06/05/2011 03:35
Arcadia's Response:
You are correct.
The passage says:
"only if the HR department is considered important will the company have a Vice President of HR"
This is properly translated as:
Vice President of HR --> the HR department is considered important
or
VPHR --> HR imp
And you're right about the "only if" rule as well: the clause that directly follows the "only if" is the consequent.
Therefore, none of the answer choices listed can be concluded, and the answer choice that is listed as correct is actually wrong.
The incorrect text is the result of an editing error on our part. You'll note that the "Reduced" text is incorrect as well. We are in the process of fixing the error, and the next update should include the corrected text. We apologize for any confusion this may have caused.
You are correct.
The passage says:
"only if the HR department is considered important will the company have a Vice President of HR"
This is properly translated as:
Vice President of HR --> the HR department is considered important
or
VPHR --> HR imp
And you're right about the "only if" rule as well: the clause that directly follows the "only if" is the consequent.
Therefore, none of the answer choices listed can be concluded, and the answer choice that is listed as correct is actually wrong.
The incorrect text is the result of an editing error on our part. You'll note that the "Reduced" text is incorrect as well. We are in the process of fixing the error, and the next update should include the corrected text. We apologize for any confusion this may have caused.
Posted: 11/24/2011 16:30
How did I get this wrong?
It says, "for a major company the following rule applies..."
The xyz company was never said to be a major company... So why would the rule apply to the xyz company?
It says, "for a major company the following rule applies..."
The xyz company was never said to be a major company... So why would the rule apply to the xyz company?
Posted: 11/24/2011 16:56
Louis,
You're right.
This one doesn't say that xyz is a major company. We will update the text so that it's clearly stated that XYZ is a major company.
Thanks.
- Arcadia Prep
You're right.
This one doesn't say that xyz is a major company. We will update the text so that it's clearly stated that XYZ is a major company.
Thanks.
- Arcadia Prep
Posted: 02/13/2012 11:58
Why do they say "care about"-- what an awful usage of words considering the word "important" was ill-defined in the passage...
Posted: 02/22/2012 21:53
I agree with Jake's post... I didn't equate "caring" with "being important". Quite misleading...